[Cite as Crawford v. Hawes, 2013-Ohio-3173.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
RYAN CRAWFORD : : Appellate Case Nos. 25178 Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant : Appellate Case Nos. 25180 : v. : Trial Court Case No. 2008-CV-7261 : ADRION HAWES, et al. : (Civil Appeal from : (Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee : : ...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 19th day of July, 2013.
...........
RYAN CRAWFORD, 729 West Grand Avenue, Apartment 313, Dayton, Ohio 45406 Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, pro se
MICHAEL C. THOMPSON, Atty. Reg. #0041420, Wright-Dunbar Business Village, 5 North Williams Street, Dayton, Ohio 45402-2843 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellees Adrion Hawes and Patricia Douglas
.............
FAIN, P.J.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff Ryan Crawford and defendants Adrion Hawes and Patricia Douglas
appeal from a judgment awarding $5,809.37 to Crawford on his unjust enrichment claim and 2
awarding $14,066.20 in compensation to the Receiver, Matthew C. Sorg. Hawes and Douglas
contend that the trial court erred in awarding compensation to the Receiver without first holding a
hearing and in finding them jointly and severally liable with Crawford for the payment of the
Receiver’s compensation. Hawes and Douglas further contend that the trial court erred in
finding that they were unjustly enriched. Crawford contends that the trial court erred in
awarding compensation to the Receiver and only awarding Crawford $5,809.37 on his unjust
enrichment claim.
{¶ 2} We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding Hawes,
Douglas, and Crawford jointly and severally liable for payment of the Receiver’s compensation.
However, we conclude that under the particular circumstances of this case, which include the fact
that the trial court had ordered that there would be a hearing on the issue of the Receiver’s
compensation after the issues made up by the pleadings had been tried, the trial court erred in
failing to hold a hearing prior to awarding the compensation requested by the Receiver. We also
conclude that the trial court did not err in its award of $5,809.37 to Crawford on his unjust
enrichment claim. Accordingly, that part of the judgment of the trial court awarding
compensation to the Receiver is Reversed; the judgment is Affirmed in all other respects; and this
cause is Remanded for a hearing on the Receiver’s request for compensation.
I. Hawes and Crawford Enter into an Illegal Contract
{¶ 3} In late 2007, Hawes and Crawford began discussing the possibility of opening a
bar together. They decided to name the bar “Leo’s II," in honor of another bar Crawford had
operated named “Leo’s.” Although no written partnership agreement existed between them, 3
Hawes and Crawford apparently agreed to enter into a 50/50 agreement regarding ownership and
operation of the bar. Because they both had felony convictions, Hawes and Crawford asked
Hawes’s mother, Patricia Douglas, to apply for the liquor license and sign the lease for the
commercial space where the bar was to be located.
{¶ 4} “Leo’s II" opened on June 1, 2008. In late June, Hawes and Crawford had an
argument regarding inventory purchases for the bar, which resulted in a physical altercation.
Hawes subsequently terminated Crawford’s employment and barred him from entering the bar.
II. Course of the Proceedings
{¶ 5} Crawford brought this action against Hawes and Douglas, setting forth claims for
breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conspiracy, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust
enrichment, and conversion. Crawford also requested that a receiver be appointed by the court
to protect his interests in the bar. One day later, Crawford filed a motion to appoint a receiver
pursuant to R.C. 2735.01 and Local Rule 2.29 of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery
County. Hawes and Douglas filed an answer and counterclaims for trespass, assault, and
conversion.
{¶ 6} The day before a scheduled receivership hearing, Hawes and Douglas moved to
continue the hearing. The magistrate denied the motion, and the hearing went forward as
scheduled. The magistrate sustained Crawford’s motion to appoint a receiver. Hawes and
Douglas filed objections to the magistrate’s decision, which the trial court overruled.
{¶ 7} Hawes appealed from the trial court’s appointment of the receiver. He
contended that the trial court abused its discretion when it overruled his motion to continue the
receivership hearing and appointed a receiver to manage the affairs of the bar. We held that the 4
trial court had not abused its discretion in overruling Hawes’s motion to continue the receivership
hearing. Crawford v. Hawes, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23209, 2010-Ohio-952, ¶ 25-26. But
we held that the trial court did abuse its discretion when it adopted the magistrate’s
recommendation that a receiver be appointed to manage the affairs of the bar, because there was
an absence of evidence of fraud or financial mismanagement on behalf of Hawes or Douglas. Id.
at ¶ 66. We reversed the trial court’s order appointing a receiver and remanded the cause for
further proceedings consistent with our opinion.
{¶ 8} After the remand, Hawes and Douglas moved to dismiss Crawford’s complaint.
The trial court sustained this motion in part and overruled it in part:
The case law makes it clear that courts have no tolerance for illegal
contracts. “A party to an illegal contract cannot come into court of law and ask to
have his illegal objects brought to fruition. The law, as it has been aptly
epitomized, ‘leaves the parties where it finds them.’ Neither the hard and fast
rules of a court of law nor the more flexible customs of a court of equity can be
invoked for relief.”[] “A court will deny all relief to a suitor, however well
founded his claim to equitable relief may otherwise be, if, in granting the relief, it
would assist a party to an illegal contract or covenant.”[]
Here, Defendants correctly assert that Plaintiff admits that the
“partnership” fraudulently used Defendant Douglas’ identity to obtain the liquor
license and the building lease. Defendants argue, then, that Plaintiff is barred
under the common law doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur action from using an
illegal or immoral act as the basis for initiating a cause of action. “When parties 5
are in parti delicto the law refuses to aid either of them against the other, but
leaves them where they have placed themselves by their own acts.”[]
In a strikingly factually similar case, Nahas v. George [156 Ohio St. 52
(1951)], the Supreme Court denied recovery to a party seeking to enforce an
illegal agreement. In Nahas, the decedent’s estate tried to recover under an
alleged oral agreement, and the Supreme Court said the contract was unlawful
because Nahas (a convicted felon) attempted to become a partner in a liquor
selling business without disclosing said fact to the Department of Liquor Control
before securing its approval.[] The Supreme Court held that the oral agreement
directly violated public policy and the Liquor Control Act, and was therefore
illegal.[]
In the case before this Court, Plaintiff states that he and Defendant Hawes
purposely obtained a liquor license and building lease through their artifice[] of
Defendant Douglas’ applying for and securing the same. Clearly, the parties’
intent, based on the Complaint and Plaintiff’s March 25, 2010 admissions, was to
defraud the Department of Liquor Control regarding the ownership and control of
Leo’s II. The parties’ actions in this regard violated public policy and several
sections of the Ohio Revised Code, including but not limited to: §4303.293,
§4303.29, §4303.25, and §4303.292. Therefore, the alleged oral agreement for
the partnership concerning Leo’s II was illegal, and this Court will not permit
Plaintiff to go forward with his claim for breach of oral contract (Count 4) or
breach of fiduciary duties arising from the alleged oral partnership agreement 6
(Count 1).
{¶ 9} The trial court held a trial on the complaint and counterclaims in April 2012. At
the beginning of the trial, Hawes and Douglas withdrew their counterclaims for trespass and
assault. After consideration of the evidence presented at trial, the court found that Crawford had
failed to establish his claims of fraud, conspiracy, promissory estoppel, or conversion, and that
Hawes and Douglas had failed to establish their counterclaim of conversion. The trial court also
found that Crawford was entitled to $5,809.37 on his unjust enrichment claim against Hawes and
Douglas. Finally, the trial court found that the Receiver, Matthew C. Sorg, was entitled to fees
in the amount of $14,066.20, for which Crawford, Hawes, and Douglas were jointly and severally
liable.
{¶ 10} From the judgment Crawford has appealed, and Douglas and Hawes have
appealed. We have consolidated the two appeals.
III. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse its Discretion by Holding Hawes, Douglas, and
Crawford Jointly and Severally Liable for the Receiver’s Compensation
{¶ 11} Defendants’ First Assignment of Error states:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AWARDING RECEIVER’S FEES,
JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, AGAINST HAWES AND DOUGLAS WHEN
CRAWFORD ALONE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF
THE RECEIVER.
{¶ 12} The primary purpose of a receiver is to carry out the orders of the appointing
court, which has the power “to exercise its sound discretion to limit or expand a receiver’s 7
powers as it deems appropriate.” State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Gibbs, 60 Ohio St.3d 69, 74, 573
N.E.2d 62 (1991). Because of this discretion, a reviewing court must not disturb a trial court’s
judgment with regard to receivers absent an abuse of discretion. Id. The term “abuse of
discretion” has been defined as a decision that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.
Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc., 19 Ohio St.3d 83, 87, 482 N.E.2d 1248 (1985).
{¶ 13} The trial court found that Hawes, Douglas, and Crawford are jointly and severally
liable for the payment of the Receiver’s fees. Hawes and Douglas contend that Crawford alone
should be responsible for the Receiver’s fees, because Crawford was the party who sought
appointment of the Receiver, and this Court subsequently held that the trial court’s appointment
of the Receiver was erroneous. We do not agree.
{¶ 14} The trial court explained why it held all three parties responsible for the payment
of the Receiver’s fees:
Importantly and on March 12, 2010, the Second District issued an Opinion
reversing the Appointment of the Receiver, finding there was no evidence of fraud
or financial mismanagement by Defendants to warrant the appointment.
In allocating responsibility for the Receiver’s Expenses, we have
considered the following,
Although the appellate court reversed the appointment of receiver, Plaintiff
did not act unreasonably in seeking and securing the appointment from this Court.
At the time Defendants barred Plaintiff from the business premises, Plaintiff had
recouped less than 18% of his investment. He persuaded both a magistrate and a
judge of this court that receivership was an appropriate remedy. [Cite as Crawford v. Hawes, 2013-Ohio-3173.] Furthermore, the Receiver appears to have adequately maintained the
business during the period of his appointment.
Finally, this Court previously determined that the partnership agreement
between the parties was an illegal contract. In other words, both parties came to
court with unclean hands. The only truly innocent party here is the Receiver, the
one appointed by the Court to run the business.
The Court believes that the most equitable solution would be to permit the
Receiver to deduct his expenses from the corpus of the receivership.
Unfortunately, this is not a viable solution because the corpus no longer exists.
Therefore, the Court hereby enters Judgment in favor of the Intervening
Plaintiff, Receiver Matthew C. Sorg and against Ryan Crawford, Adrion Hawes,
and Patricia Douglas, jointly and severally, in the amount of Fourteen Thousand
Sixty-Six and 20/100 Dollars ($14,066.20) plus statutory interest.
{¶ 15} The Supreme Court of Ohio has addressed the trial court’s authority to hold
parties responsible for a receiver’s fees. In Richey v. Brett, 112 Ohio St. 582, 586-588, 148 N.E.
92 (1925), the Supreme Court stated, in part:
It is not doubted that under special circumstances parties who invoke the
processes of the court to have a receiver appointed, and to conduct the business of
an insolvent concern, may become personally liable for expenses of the receiver,
even including losses resulting from unsuccessful operation. In nearly all cases in
which this principle has been declared, facts and circumstances were shown to the
effect that the assets of the insolvent concern were exhausted, and that the
connection of the plaintiffs in the action was such as to make it inequitable not to 9
hold them responsible for a deficiency. It may be further conceded that under any
and all circumstances such expenses and losses should be made a charge against
the corpus of the property in the custody of the receiver. * * * Cases are found
among the authorities holding that, where the corpus is not available, and there has
been an irregular or unauthorized appointment of a receiver, or where a party has
received benefits from the receivership in excess of the amount required to be
paid, or where an action has unjustly been maintained without right, in all such
instances the plaintiffs in the action may be held personally responsible for
deficiencies. ***
It is not expedient to attempt to enumerate all the circumstances which
would render plaintiffs responsible for the debts of a receiver. It is sufficient to say
that no equitable considerations are found in this record calling for the application
of such a rule.
{¶ 16} Hawes and Douglas contend that the holding in Richey requires that we reverse
the trial court’s order and find Crawford solely liable for the Receiver’s fees. In support of its
contention, Hawes and Douglas cite Carr v. Acacia Country Club Co., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
97989, 2012-Ohio-4723. In Carr, the Eighth District Court of Appeals opined, at ¶ 15:
When the appointment of a receiver is improper or invalid, the party at
whose instance the receiver was appointed, and not the receivership fund, must
pay all costs and expenses incurred as a result of the appointment. * * * In such
cases, the receivership costs are directly related to the acts of the plaintiff in filing
suit and seeking the appointment of a receiver and cannot be ordered to be paid 10
from funds that belong to the corporation, its creditors, and stockholders. * * *
Thus, a party who procures the appointment of a receiver runs the risk of being
held accountable for the receiver’s compensation in the event the appointment is
found improper or invalid or is otherwise required under principles of equity.
{¶ 17} According to Douglas and Hawes, the Carr decision makes it clear that a party
who requests a receivership must be liable when the appointment of the receivership is
subsequently found to be in error. However, less than a month later, in Dyczkiewycz v. Tremon
Ridge Phase 1 Limited Partnership, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97909, 2012-Ohio-5173, the Eighth
District made it clear that there was no blanket rule that the party seeking a receiver always
should be personally liable for the compensation of the receiver and the expenses of
administration. Rather, the Eighth District stated that “parties who invoke the appointment of a
receiver may become personally liable for the compensation of the receiver and the expenses of
administration only when special circumstances are present.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶ 39
{¶ 18} In the case before us, all of the parties entered into an illegal contract and came to
the trial court with unclean hands. As a result of the illegal contract and conduct of the parties, a
receiver was appointed to operate Leo’s II. Although we subsequently reversed the trial court’s
appointment of the Receiver, the trial court is correct that the Receiver is entitled to reasonable
compensation for his work. Furthermore, our reversal of the appointment did not require that
Crawford be held solely responsible for the Receiver’s compensation. The actions of all of the
parties in this case in entering into an illegal contract and failing to cooperate with each other in
running the business ultimately led to the appointment of the Receiver. Moreover, the record
demonstrates that after the appointment of the Receiver, the parties were less than fully 11
cooperative with the Receiver.
{¶ 19} Based on the particular facts before us, we conclude that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in finding special circumstances existed that warranted holding the parties
jointly and severally liable for the Receiver’s compensation. Consequently, defendants’ First
Assignment of Error is overruled.
IV. The Trial Court Erred in Awarding Fees
to the Receiver Without First Holding a Hearing
{¶ 20} Defendants’ Second Assignment of Error states:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE RECEIVER FEES,
WITHOUT A HEARING, WHEN IT PREVIOUSLY BIFURCATED THE
ISSUE.
{¶ 21} Crawford also contends in his appellate brief 1 that the trial court erred in
awarding fees to the Receiver. We agree with the parties that, under the particular facts of this
case, the trial court should have held a hearing before awarding compensation to the Receiver.
{¶ 22} On August 4, 2009, the Receiver filed a report and a motion for approval of
disbursements in which the Receiver requested $7,649.70 in compensation. Hawes and Douglas
filed objections to the Receiver’s motion for approval of disbursements and requested that the
trial court overrule the motion or hold a hearing on the Receiver’s motion. The trial court did
not take any action on the Receiver’s motion or the objections.
1 Crawford’s appellate briefs fail to comply with App.R. 16 in several respects. He mentions “issues” in one of his appellate briefs, but fails to identify any assignments of error. However, he does complain about the trial court’s award of fees to the Receiver. 12
{¶ 23} On February 18, 2010, the Receiver filed another report and motion for approval
of disbursements, in which the Receiver requested $12,633.95 in compensation, including the
$7,649.70 previously requested in the Receiver’s August 4, 2009 motion. Based on our review
of the record, it does not appear that the parties responded or objected to the Receiver’s February
18, 2010 motion. The trial court did not take any action on the Receiver’s motion.
{¶ 24} On September 3, 2010, the Receiver filed an Intervening Third Party Complaint
For Receivership Fees And Costs, seeking judgment against Crawford, Hawes, and Douglas,
jointly and severally, in the amount of $14,066.20, plus statutory interest. Hawes and Douglas
filed an answer to the Receiver’s complaint. The Receiver subsequently filed a motion to
bifurcate the Receiver’s claims from the underlying issues regarding the existence of a
partnership between Crawford and Douglas and Hawes. The trial court granted the motion to
bifurcate on September 21, 2010, stating that: “[a] hearing on the Receiver’s/Intervening
Defendant’s claims shall be set pursuant to further Court order following the adjudication of the
underlying issues regarding the existence of a partnership between Plaintiff and Defendants
Hawes and Douglas.”
{¶ 25} On February 11, 2011, the Receiver filed the Final Report of Receiver and a
motion for approval of disbursements. The Receiver requested compensation in the amount of
$14,066.20, which included a past due balance of $12,633.95. Page two of the motion included
the following statement2:
NOTICE OF DEADLINE FOR OBJECTION
A RESPONSIVE PLEADING MEMORANDUM MUST BE FILED
2 This statement also appeared in the August 4, 2009 and February 18, 2010 motions for approval of disbursements. 13
WITHIN SEVENTEEN (17) DAYS FROM THE DATE ON THE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WITH THIS MOTION, AND A FAILURE
TO FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING OR OBJECTION IN A TIMELY
BASIS MAY BE CAUSE FOR THE COURT TO GRANT THE REPORT
AS FILED WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. ANY OBJECTION MUST
BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SERVED ON THE RECEIVER BY
SAID DEADLINE. (Emphasis sic.)
{¶ 26} The trial on the underlying claims of the parties occurred on April 2, 2012.
After the trial, the court entered judgment in favor of Crawford on his unjust enrichment claim,
and then addressed the Receiver’s request for compensation. The trial court stated:
Lastly, the Court will address Payment of the Receiver’s Expenses. On
February 18, 2011, the Receiver filed his Final Report of the Receiver: Motion of
Receiver for Approval of Disbursements; and Notice of Response Date for
Objections Thereto.[] To date, no objections have been filed by either party.
This Court finds that a detailed account of time expended was attached to
said application. After a thorough review of the referenced fee application, the
Court finds that the fees charged, including the Receiver’s hourly rate, are
reasonable and customary for the services performed. Therefore, the Court
approves the Receiver’s Expenses in the amount of $14,066.20.
{¶ 27} We conclude that the trial court erred in awarding compensation to the Receiver
without first holding a hearing regarding the reasonableness of the compensation. Local Rule
2.29 of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County provides, in pertinent part: 14
II. COMPENSATION OF RECEIVER
A. No compensation shall be allowed to a receiver or the receiver’s
counsel except upon written application describing the services rendered, the time
required, the amount requested for each and the amounts, if any, previously
received. The Court shall fix the time for hearing and determine the nature of the
notice to creditors of the application.
{¶ 28} The plain language of Local Rule 2.29 requires the trial court to set a time for
hearing on a receiver’s request for compensation. Furthermore, the trial court’s September 20,
2011 order bifurcated the issue of the Receiver’s compensation from the trial of Crawford’s
complaint and Defendants’ counterclaims. Indeed, in its bifurcation order, the trial court stated
that a hearing would be set on the Receiver’s compensation after the trial had concluded.
Instead of scheduling that hearing, the trial court granted compensation to the Receiver without a
hearing and without further notice to the parties.
{¶ 29} In its judgment entry, the trial court noted that the parties had failed to file
objections to the Receiver’s February 11, 2011 final report and request for compensation. This
failure, however, is understandable given that: (1) objections had been previously filed to the
Receiver’s August 4, 2009 motion for approval of disbursements, which included much of the
same fees requested by the Receiver in his final report; (2) an answer had been filed to the
Receiver’s third-party complaint; and (3) the trial court had stated in its bifurcation order that the
matter of the Receiver’s request for compensation would be set for hearing following the trial on
the parties’ complaint and counterclaims.
{¶ 30} Given the particular facts before us, we conclude that the trial court erred in 15
awarding compensation to the Receiver without first holding a hearing. Defendants’ Second
Assignment of Error is sustained.
V. The Trial Court Did Not Err in its Award
to Crawford on his Unjust Enrichment Claim
{¶ 31} Defendants’ Third Assignment of Error states:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANTS HAWES
AND DOUGLAS WERE UNJUSTLY ENRICHED WHEN CRAWFORD DID
NOT ACCOUNT FOR NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS HE RECEIVED
DURING THE MONTH HE MANAGED LEO’S II.
{¶ 32} Conversely, Crawford contends in his brief that the trial court erred by not
awarding him a greater sum on his unjust enrichment claim.
{¶ 33} In essence, the parties contend that the trial court’s award of $5,809.37 on
Crawford’s unjust enrichment claim is against the manifest weight of the evidence. The
standard set forth for manifest-weight-of-the-evidence appellate review in State v. Thompkins, 78
Ohio St.3d 380, 1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541, applies also in civil cases. Eastley v. Volkman,
132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, 972 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 17. In applying this standard, the
appellate court, reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences,
considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the
evidence, the factfinder clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that
the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered. The discretionary power to grant a new
trial should be exercised only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily 16
against the judgment. State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717, 720-721 (1st
Dist.1983), cited approvingly in Thompkins at 387.
{¶ 34} In Ohio, unjust enrichment is a claim under quasi-contract law against a person in
receipt of benefits that he is not justly and equitably entitled to retain. Hummel v. Hummel, 133
Ohio St. 520, 527, 14 N.E.2d 923 (1938). Unjust enrichment entitles a party only to restitution
of the reasonable value of the benefit conferred. Sammartino v. Eiselstein, 7th Dist. Mahoning
No. 08 MA 211, 2009-Ohio-2641, ¶ 14. The elements of an unjust enrichment claim are as
follows: (1) a benefit conferred by a plaintiff upon a defendant; (2) knowledge by the defendant
of the benefit; and (3) retention of the benefit by the defendant under circumstances where it
would be unjust to do so without payment (i.e., the “unjust enrichment” element). L & H
Leasing Co. v. Dutton, 82 Ohio App.3d 528, 534, 612 N.E.2d 787 (3d Dist.1992), citing
Hambleton v. R.G. Barry Corp., 12 Ohio St.3d 179, 183, 465 N.E.2d 1298 (1984).
{¶ 35} Based on a review of the evidence of the parties presented at trial, the trial court
found that Crawford had invested $22,938.66 in Leo’s II. The trial court derived this finding
upon a number of the exhibits introduced by Crawford and one exhibit introduced by Hawes and
Douglas. The trial court then subtracted from this investment the $8,600 that Plaintiff had
received against his investment. The $8,600 consisted of $4,000 in cover charges and $4,600 in
payments ordered by the Receiver while Crawford was not working at the business. The trial
court then further deducted $8,529.29, which represented the amount that defendant Hawes had
paid out of his own funds to get the business back on its feet after Crawford had run the business
for approximately a month. This resulted in the $5,809.37 that the trial court awarded Crawford
on his unjust enrichment claim. 17
{¶ 36} Hawes and Douglas contend that the trial court erred in failing to account for an
additional $9,407 listed in an October 22, 2008 printout from the cash register at Leo’s II.
According to Hawes, the amount reflected in the printout represented the amount of sales at the
bar from September 25 to October 22, 2008. Hawes contends that this printout establishes that
Crawford received an additional $9,407, which the trial court should also have deducted from
Crawford’s investment.
{¶ 37} Crawford, on the other hand, contends that the trial court erred in failing to award
him additional monies he had invested in the business. According to Crawford, he invested
$50,000 in the business of Leo’s II, and Hawes and Douglas failed to abide by the oral agreement
they had with Crawford.
{¶ 38} The trial court properly found that the contract entered into between the parties
was an illegal contract. As a result, the trial court could have found that none of the parties was
entitled to any damages. However, the trial court found that Crawford was entitled to receive the
return of his initial investment. The trial court’s calculation of the damages on Crawford’s
unjust enrichment claim credited some of the parties’ testimony and discredited other portions of
the testimony. The credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony are
primarily matters for the trier of facts to resolve. State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 231, 227
N.E.2d 212 (1967). “The decision whether, and to what extent, to credit the testimony of
particular witnesses is within the peculiar competence of the factfinder, who has seen and heard
the witness.” State v. Lawson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 16288, 1997 WL 476684, *4 (Aug. 22,
1997).
{¶ 39} We have reviewed the transcript from the trial and the exhibits introduced into 18
evidence by the parties. The underlying information used by the trial court to calculate
Crawford’s damages is supported by the record. The contentions by the parties regarding
additional amounts that should either have been added or deducted in the trial court’s calculation
rest upon the credibility of the parties’ testimony. We will defer to the trial court’s credibility
determinations in calculating the damages in this matter. Consequently, we conclude that the
trial court’s calculation of damages on Crawford’s unjust enrichment claim is not against the
manifest weight of the evidence. This is not the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs
heavily against the judgment of the trial court, creating a manifest injustice.
{¶ 40} Defendants’ Third Assignment of Error is overruled. Crawford’s inferred
assignment of error relating to the trial court’s award on Crawford’s unjust enrichment claim is
also overruled.
VI. Conclusion
{¶ 41} Defendants’ Second Assignment of Error having been sustained, and all other
assignments of error having been overruled, that part of the judgment of the trial court awarding
compensation to the Receiver is Reversed; the judgment of the trial court is Affirmed in all other
respects; and this cause is Remanded for a hearing on the Receiver’s request for compensation.
DONOVAN and WELBAUM, JJ., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Ryan Crawford Michael C. Thompson 19
Hon. William H. Wolff, Jr. (Sitting for Judge Steven K. Dankof)